02 January 2012 12:59 PM

Small Expectations, and our conversation resumed

As I suspected they might, my criticisms of the BBC’s ‘Great Expectations’ drew more comment than anything else I said on Sunday.

Given that the prosperous world trembles on the lip of a great precipice, with a real prospect of permanent and irreversible economic decline, is this reasonable?

Actually, yes. Books such as ‘Great Expectations’ were part of the great moral revolution which made this country prosperous, ordered and civilised. They are crucial to our civilisation. Like all great moral books, it makes the reader envy the good characters their goodness, and want to emulate them . It made us recognise the good and the bad in ourselves - in fact Dickens ceaselessly did this, probably because he was himself struggling all the time against his own cruelty and selfishness, and loathed these things in others. I can never make up my mind as to whether ‘Great Expectations’ or ‘David Copperfield’ is Dickens’s finest book. Literary types have always rather despised Dickens because he was ‘sentimental’ , which of course he was. But so are most of us.

A good modern example of the influence of books for good is Patrick O’Brian’s fine series of historical novels set in the Napoleonic Wars. Having read them, almost any thoughtful person will be a better human being, thanks to his or her encounter with Captain Jack Aubrey and his friend Stephen Maturin. Both men have great virtues (both also have terrible weaknesses, Aubrey – a genius at sea or in battle - becomes a hopeless fool on land and in time of peace). Like Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson, the two together make one first-rate human being, a little like a marriage but without the sexual element. The reader, consciously or unconsciously, longs to meet with their approval.

I am just about to embark on reading ‘Great Expectations’ again because, while furiously checking the text to see if there is any justification for the BBC travesty, I realised how much of the book I had forgotten since I last read it, and how much the David Lean film now overlays the text in my mind. Lean, for instance, completely omits the nasty character of Dolge Orlick, while making much of the wise and delightful Biddy.

Lean is, I think, truer to the spirit of the book than the BBC, who played up Orlick (He’s a much more 21st-century type, whereas there are not many Biddys around today. But it’s not as if there are not plenty of other horrible people in the book) and, as far as I could see, completely got rid of Biddy.

But both versions are unwilling to reach Dickens’s original bleak conclusion, in which there is no hope of Pip and Estella marrying. Public reaction persuaded Dickens to write a second, alternative ending in which the reader can, if he wishes, believe that the two will eventually wed. The closing words are plangent and haunting ‘the evening mists were rising now, and in all the broad expanse of tranquil light they showed to me, I saw no shadow of another parting from her’. But they are directly preceded by Estella’s flat declaration that the two ‘will continue friends apart’. I think there’s no avoiding the fact that Dickens saw the story as a tragedy with no comforting ending, in which people destroy themselves through vengeance, snobbery and dishonesty.

And yes, why on earth did the BBC change a perfectly good pork pie, which makes sense in the plot, and is lovingly described before its disappearance is noticed, into a mutton pie, an entirely different comestible? I can’t imagine that Mrs Joe would have served a mutton pie cold (ugh) and one gropes for any reason for meddling. You might think it is meant to show that the writers were cleverer than Dickens. But as they aren’t, it doesn’t.

For instance, the opening of the book, in the churchyard cannot really be altered, because much of the dialogue between Pip and Magwitch doesn’t make sense anywhere else. So why shift the encounter to a bridge over a stream, where the gravestones cannot be seen?

As for the character of Joe Gargery, the whole point about Joe is that he is full of humour, forgiveness and gentleness . Everyone should read his description of his own awful childhood, crammed as it is with deep, gentle forgiveness of his own appalling father, combined with a determination not to repeat the evil done to him, which explains his otherwise inexplicable tolerance of his wife’s shrewish behaviour. Then (this is very early in the book) there is the description of the game he and Pip make over eating the meagre bread-and-butter ration allowed them by the ever-furious Mrs Joe. It is just the way a patient and light-hearted person would deal with such a difficulty, and it is very funny.

And the day when Joe comes to London to find Pip transformed into a an awful little snob is as a result one of mingled pain and hilarity – not the rather boring and obvious scene of sullen reproach portrayed in the BBC version. As I asked so often in my complaints about the new version of ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’, why take so much trouble to change things of this kind, when it would have been easier to leave them alone?

Increasingly, I think it is a justified fear on the part of the writers that, as they cannot do better than the previous version, and may well do worse, they will alter the story so that they are never actually put to the test, and cannot be directly measured against those who have gone before.

But look at what is lost here – perhaps one of the best, most sympathetic yet devastating denunciations of foolish class division that has ever been written or (in the Lean film) performed.

In fact it is really the evisceration and transformation of Joe Gargery which is much the worst thing about the new version, especially if you combine it with the crude agitprop alteration of Herbert Pocket into a Marxist-Leninist’s idea of a snob, so much less subtle, and so much easier to ignore, and so much less interesting, than Dickens’s funny, clever approach to the same subject . In the end, the messing about with Miss Havisham is, by comparison, trivial. You might have expected them to get the accents wrong, to get Jaggers wholly wrong (though what a loss that is) , to make Wemmick far grimmer than he is, to introduce a non-existent brothel and who knows what other silly changes.

I suppose that really such people don’t like Dickens because he isn’t an ideologue and he won’t be dull. For many years the literary critics simply ruled him out of their ‘Great Tradition’. It has recently been fashionable to make much of ‘Bleak House’, not in my view an especially fine novel, though the opening is a joy, because it is as close as Dickens got to writing a ‘literary’ novel, that is to say one which it is a bit of an effort to read, and in which not very much happens for quite a lot of the time. I speak as someone who has repeatedly tried, under ideal conditions, to get past page 20 of ‘Pride and Prejudice’ and has found himself completely unable to do so. My eye starts wandering round the room, reading the conditions of carriage on the railway ticket I’m using as a bookmark, or the corner of the sports page of an old newspaper on a nearby armchair – yet I never read the sports page.

In fact, one of my last conversations with my brother involved him urging me to try ‘Pride and Prejudice’ again, (and also to make another attempt on ‘Middlemarch’, another of my failures, though oddly enough I stormed enthusiastically through ‘Silas Marner’ after finding it in a fading but beautifully-printed old edition in a secondhand bookshop in Norwich one winter afternoon).

Anyway, I suppose it’s more or less true to say , while the pre-1914 generation who shaped this country’s customs, morals and attitudes until very recently were formed by Dickens, (with the Bible and by John Bunyan’s now-forgotten ‘Pilgrim’s Progress’ in the backs of their minds) , modern Britain is formed by TV and soap opera. Apparently the New Britain cannot tolerate the continued existence of the old one, and , since it cannot wholly forget Dickens, has resolved to remake him to suit the world of Big Brother and the gap yah.

This is greatly important. The furniture of your mind, especially the stories and poems that are there, makes you incapable of some actions and thoughts, and capable of others. I think anyone who has *read* ‘Great Expectations', and has allowed its characters to come to life in his mind, will be kinder, more forbearing and less vengeful – as well as less inclined to classify people by their external appearance – than anyone who hasn’t.

I also think that characters encountered in print live much more fully in our minds than characters who have been largely created for us by TV or films. Also, the more we get used to having the work done for us, the less we are prepared to do for ourselves. I don’t think anyone in this generation, that is, born since colour TV invaded children’s bedrooms, let alone since the arrival of computer games, is likely to make the effort needed to read their way into old-fashioned children’s books such as the Conan Doyle historical romances that I have always loved so much.

As to why the older Pip could not have looked like a 21st-century male model , there are several answers. One, the TV version of the older Pip bore not the faintest resemblance to the younger one and seems to me to have been chosen by the casting executives precisely because of his extraordinary physical beauty, even though this was in defiance of any justification for this in the text or in the younger Pip’s appearance. This sort of thing, extreme and rather chilly physical beauty, seems to be good for audience figures, as in the recent bizarre and excruciatingly dull film of ‘Alice’ ( also little to do with the original books) which appears to have been a box-office success. But the face of this actor also seems to me to be quite unmarked by the earthy experience that would have given shape and mobility to the face of a man who had worked for years in a village forge. I know nothing of the actor involved, but I would be surprised if his personal background turns out to contradict my belief.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mr Hitchens, you might find that unabridged audio readings of some of those hard-to-finish books another way to introduce yourself to them. Especially good when the task at hand does not require a lot of attention. Middlemarch humbles me every time I re-read it, or, as I often do now, re-listen. (Can't underline those choice phrases when listening, of course!)

I just wanted to comment and say that you should not worry that ALL the children born since the horrible blight of coloured TVs in their bedrooms are missing out on wonderful stories.

There is hope. An underground rebellion led by parents who have had enough even! Three little ones here. Edward Lear, Bunyan Abridged, Enid Blyton, Gabriel Setoun, Robert Louis Stevenson..... Can't beat the sofa and a good book! Best wishes.

It was wonderful to read your comments in last Sunday's Mail. I had been wondering if I was in my right mind as I read reviews both nationally and in my local (Midland) press praising this production.
Your further comments above prempt much of what I was going to say about Dickens' original ending and the otherwise excellent pre war production omission of Orlick. The other main criticism of Mr Lean's film was Pip's age. John Mills was approaching 40 at the time but he is such a fine actor I think he just about overcame the around 20 year difference (as did Guinness as Herebert Pocket) Unlike the dreadful Miss Havisham of 2011!
The BBC have in fact done several adaptations over the years (usually 6 parts) and by and large I feel these were good. The best in my opinion goes back to my schooldays when a little known actor, Jerold Wells, performed the best Magwitch of all (although Finlay Currie was excellent in the film). Some years later Francesca Annis played a very good Estella and in fact this adaptation was, as far as I know, the only time the BBC chose the original ending. Estella had married a doctor and she and Pip coincidentally met at an exhibition of some sort I believe. Pip had with him Joe and Biddy's son.
I am never going to be asked to go on Desert Island Discs but if I were this would be my chosen novel, it is superb. The BBC have really let themselves down this time. No doubt there will be a few more they will ruin from the pen of one of our greatest writers.

"'Reason' did prevail, didn't it? [As opposed to superstition.] " (Christopher Charles). I suppose what is reason/superstition to Christopher Charles is superstition/reason to me. There's absolutely nothing more irrational (or indeed superstitious - though I've always been unhappy about that word; users should define it) than the (main) materialist idea that everything that exists has got here by undirected chance/accident - from nothing - and that chaos, undirected, produced order. It's onlly possible to believe that ... by a strong effort of the will, satisfying a very deep-seated irrational need.

After 'Dirty Harry' Andy Robinson only appeared in one major film: "Charley Varrick" - I believe it was called 'Kill Charley Varrick' over here. Since then, he has worked mostly in television as an actor and director and I believe he runs an acting school.

I should probably make it clear that I was referring to Brian Lavery's great 'Nelson's Navy: The ships, men and organisation, 1793-1815', and not to the slim volume he published in more recent years, with the confusingly similar title 'Life in Nelson's Navy.'

beatpoet - I have no idea about Andy Robinson, I often wonder the same about Jame Gumb from 'Silence of the Lambs' who was also disgusting.

On the subject of war and books, I really enjoy memoirs from WW1, the best being 'The Weary Road' by Charles Douie, 'Goodbye to all That' by Robert Graves, 'The Sherston Trilogy' by Siegfried Sassoon and 'Undertones of War' by Edmund Blunden. All together give a very good glimpse into early 20th century times and mentality centred obviously around the Great War.

In reply to Scott Ross.
Surely misspelling a noun is not a grammar crime, even so I was supprised to find it spelt merecat. I thought I'd spelt it meercat. It pays to proof read. But then again proof reading ones own output, is fraught with danger
As for Aleksandr. I was making a point that Alexander the Great would most likely be associated with the Meerkat ( thanks for the correct spelling ) by our latest generation. So that spell was correct simples.
Back to the thread. I had great t expectations in our Justice system . Yesterday it became the fodder of the Daily Mail and thousands of others treading over our precious constitution . The total ignoring of the sub judice laws making for a political traversty of justice. The conviction of two out of five original cleared suspects. Whether they did it or nay. This conviction should surely be seen as unsafe unconstitutional. and abhorrent to all who work within its system.

Couldn't agree more with you about Jane Austen. I once had to read and analyse P&P, Sense & Sensibility, Emma and Northanger Abbey in the space of six months as part of an English literature course. Almost lost the will to live.

I did, though, very much enjoy the BBC adaptation of Great Expectations, although I had not read the book and had no prior knowledge of the story. It did make me want to read the book and I intend to do this soon.

@ Jim Bancroft - there's nothing worse than not knowing the meaning of a word when reading a book - whenever I'm reading, I always have a dictionary within easy reach. However, in the case of the O'Brian novel, my dictionary didn't contain too many of the technical naval terms used. Technology has moved on since my attempt to read this novel, and I now have an I-Pad, so I dare say I could find out what these words mean at click of a button. Just to demonstrate the point, I've just Googled "Dictionary of Nautical Terms" and within seconds, I've now got a list of sources, such as "Glossary of Nautical Terms", "Maritime Technology", etc. I'm afraid I don't know enough about any of these to recommend one, though. Still, as Russell Crowe's "Jack Aubrey" said (about the sleek, new ship design) in the "Master and Commander" film - "What an amazing technological age we live in."

Jim Bancroft, beatpoet: I had trouble with all of the naval terminology at first, as well. However, I just Googled about mainmasts, bowsprits, coxswains, etc., and eventually got used to them (though I still have to look them up). I found that the eventual rewards were worth the effort. (A bit like learning the archaic language of the Authorised/King James Bible is.) It is essential if you as the reader are going to immerse yourself in O'Brian's settings as much as he wants you to.

Similarly, if some author in the distant future is going to conjure up a series of exciting stories about my world of 21st Century computer programming, he won't do it with much authenticity unless his characters are talking IDEs and breakpoints, releases and branches, interface specifications and persistence frameworks. Could be pretty compelling reading, you know. (The boss declared, “We have run out of ground coffee, so we're using instant instead.” Brooks cried out, “Nooooooo!”)

@ Darren W - I think the battle scenes of the "Sharpe" novels, and Cornwell's description of army life in the Napoleonic Wars capture the era superbly. I don't like Sharpe's romantic dalliances, and I tend to skim over these - I'll agree this perhaps gives the Mills and Boon aspect of which you speak. I loved Ben Kingsley's "Don Logan" character in "Sexy Beast", but found him outrageously funny more than anything else. In terms of screen "bad guys", I liked Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of the creepy, incestuous "Commodus" in "Gladiator", and Michael Madsen's brutal "Mr.Blonde" from "Reservoir Dogs". And whatever happened to Andy Robinson, who played the deranged killer from the original "Dirty Harry" movie?

Mike Barnes,thanks for you kind words back on the now deceased thread that,latterly,turned into the Charles Stephenson versus you and me show.

I'm amicably resigned to another accusation of grammar snobbery,but your spelling of meerkat has made me smile on a day when anything that could is more than welcome.Though I'd imagine many victims of comprehensive education would spell it the same way.Some also seem to want to spell the critter in questions' first name as you did,rather than as Aleksandr.

I don't discount the possibility of that being meant as a wee tribute to Scotland,in your case.

I'll add that Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" is not totally forgotten in Northern Ireland. We read it in school and I think possibly even watched a television / film adaptation? I can vaguely remember Mr. Christian and his burden travelling to the celestial city.

@ Mr Hodson
No sir you are incorrect, 90% of this generation do know who Churchill is. The mascot of a motor Insurance company.
Just as Alexander the great is a Merecat.
The prime educator being that box, sorry flat screen in every room. Thats why the modern crop insist on addaptations in their political image . Their grip is tenuous, thus consant up dates are required.,
But asI said in a previous post. Only that 10 %. The rest are of no consequence to them.

If Peter Hitchens wants to get the bit between his teeth, watch the Sky travesty of Treasure Island. I was looking forward to this as the previews looked sumptuous and Eddie Izzard Long John Silver was miles away from the Robert Newton Jim Lad one.
By the end I was shouting at the TV as they changed the story and some of the characters beyond recognition. Squire Trewlany a villain, Dr Livesley a snivelling coward, Ben Gunn and the treasure left on the island? Jim's Mother evicted and homeless and befriending Silver's wife even though she was to have supposed to have lived in the West Indies.
If you felt uncomfortable with GE wait till you watch Treasure Island.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.